Views: 0 Author: Site Editor Publish Time: 2025-05-30 Origin: Site
In industries where fire safety is paramount, such as aviation and the oil & gas sector, few tools are as vital—or as controversial—as firefighting foam. For decades, Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) has been the backbone of fire suppression systems used to fight flammable liquid fires, especially in large-scale fuel-related incidents. Its ability to rapidly suppress flames and prevent re-ignition has saved countless lives and assets.
However, the fire safety industry is now at a crossroads. AFFF contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—a group of man-made chemicals known for their persistence in the environment and links to serious health risks. As scientific understanding of PFAS toxicity grows, so too does global pressure to phase out AFFF and replace it with fluorine free foam (FFF), a more environmentally friendly alternative.
While the transition to FFF is well underway in some sectors, aviation and oil industries face unique and substantial challenges. These sectors must balance environmental responsibility with uncompromising performance standards. In this article, we explore the main difficulties in moving from AFFF to FFF and what it means for fire safety, regulation, cost, and operational readiness.
AFFF owes its effectiveness to fluorinated surfactants, which allow the foam to spread rapidly across fuel surfaces, forming a thin film that cuts off oxygen and suppresses vapors. Unfortunately, these fluorochemicals are extremely persistent, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals." Once released into the environment, they contaminate water, soil, and even the human body.
Numerous studies have linked PFAS exposure to cancer, hormonal disruption, immune system damage, and developmental issues. In response, governments and regulators across the globe are tightening restrictions on PFAS-containing foams and calling for complete phase-outs.
Transitioning from AFFF to FFF may seem straightforward in theory, but both the aviation and oil sectors present particularly complex challenges.
Airports and oil refineries handle large volumes of volatile hydrocarbons. Fires in these locations escalate rapidly, with extreme temperatures and dangerous conditions that demand immediate, effective suppression. AFFF’s ability to knock down flames in seconds and prevent re-ignition under intense heat has set a performance standard that FFF must match.
Regulations such as ICAO Level B/C for aviation and NFPA 11 and EN 1568 standards for industrial fire safety set specific requirements for foam effectiveness. Meeting these standards with FFF—without compromising safety—requires rigorous formulation, testing, and validation. AFFF has decades of proven performance. FFF, although improved, is still establishing its track record.
While FFF has advanced significantly in recent years, certain performance attributes—such as rapid knockdown and burnback resistance—can still fall short compared to AFFF, especially under high-heat or fuel-soaked conditions common in aviation and oil fires.
Testing new foam under real conditions is expensive and time-consuming. Moreover, fire departments and safety teams often require months, even years, of trials before gaining full confidence in FFF.
AFFF and FFF differ chemically and physically, meaning that switching foams can’t always be done with a simple fluid swap. Issues include:
Foam concentrate viscosity: FFF may flow differently through pumps and proportioning systems.
Nozzle and discharge compatibility: Some FFF types require different spray patterns or discharge pressures.
Storage tank materials: Older tanks may be incompatible with FFF, leading to corrosion or instability.
Residual contamination: Traces of AFFF in pipes or tanks can degrade FFF performance and risk legal non-compliance.
Retrofitting or replacing equipment adds significant cost and downtime, which many operations can't afford.
Firefighters and emergency crews have spent years learning to work with AFFF. FFF behaves differently in terms of spread rate, bubble structure, expansion ratio, and application method. This means:
Retraining is essential to avoid misuse or underperformance.
Simulation exercises and drills must be revised to reflect new foam behavior.
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) must be updated, which can take time and coordination across multiple teams.
Changing foam technology also introduces uncertainty during the transition period, which is particularly risky in mission-critical sectors.
Although many regulators now promote PFAS-free products, standards and timelines vary widely by region. This inconsistency creates confusion for global players in aviation and oil:
One country may still permit AFFF use; another may demand full FFF compliance.
Certification bodies have not yet fully harmonized their approval processes for FFF.
Foam producers and operators often face regulatory limbo, caught between meeting environmental goals and ensuring compliance with outdated fire codes that assume AFFF use.
FFF concentrates are typically more expensive than legacy AFFF, especially for premium formulations that aim to match AFFF performance. In addition:
System upgrades or replacements may be required.
Disposal of AFFF involves hazardous waste handling, which is costly and highly regulated.
Testing and certification fees add to the total transition budget.
For large-scale operations, these costs can run into millions of dollars.
Despite higher upfront expenses, switching to FFF may provide long-term financial benefits:
Reduced liability from environmental contamination lawsuits.
Lower costs for training and drills, since FFF is safer to use in practice scenarios.
No need for PFAS decontamination during future maintenance or inspections.
Positive brand image for environmentally responsible companies.
Still, for budget-conscious organizations, the short-term costs are a substantial barrier to change.
Despite the obstacles, progress is being made:
London Heathrow Airport and Copenhagen Airport have transitioned to FFF, demonstrating that high-performance aviation operations can be maintained with fluorine free alternatives.
Major oil companies like TotalEnergies and BP have initiated partial or full FFF use in selected locations.
The U.S. Department of Defense is now phasing out AFFF in favor of approved FFF products in accordance with military specs.
These success stories show that while challenging, the shift is achievable with the right commitment and planning.
For aviation and oil sectors, a successful move from AFFF to FFF requires:
Early assessment of current systems and foam compatibility.
Engagement with foam manufacturers who can offer tailored, high-performance FFF solutions.
Collaborative training programs for fire safety teams.
Gradual phase-out plans that allow time for system upgrades and regulatory alignment.
Involvement of certification bodies and regulators to streamline approval and support transition funding.
Rather than a simple product swap, transitioning to fluorine free foam is a strategic shift that touches on safety, compliance, sustainability, and operational excellence.
As the industry responds to environmental concerns and new safety standards, companies like Jiangsu Suolong Fire Science and Technology Co., Ltd. are playing a vital role in leading innovation. Suolong is actively developing and supplying high-quality fluorine free foam solutions designed for demanding sectors like aviation and oil & gas. Their commitment to research, performance validation, and global regulatory compliance helps bridge the gap between legacy fire suppression methods and a sustainable future.
With strong partners and forward-thinking strategies, the transition from AFFF to FFF doesn’t have to compromise fire safety—it can enhance it, while also protecting people, the environment, and industry reputations for generations to come.